2017+ Chrysler Pacifica Minivan Forums banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
according to mopar.com my '17 pacifica requires the s/w update and the "parts" are available.

Repair Description

The PCM must be reprogrammed with new software.

Recall Status

INCOMPLETE BUT REPAIR PARTS ARE AVAILABLE

has anyone had this repair done yet? if so, have any new problems surfaced?

realistically, the chances are quite good that a s/w update can be buggy unless it is thoroughly and rigorously tested. maybe it was. hopefully it was. or maybe it was not. leaving us to test it which is not a good thing.

me, for now, i'm moving to the back of the line...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
477 Posts
This U01 recall is for a serious and potentially deadly engine shutoff issue.

I wouldn't worry about the update being buggy. The fact that an update is necessary is evidence that the system is already buggy and this U01 is designed to fix that stall issue.

This is NOT something to sit on at the back of the line and you should have the update done post-haste.

It's not like an iPhone update where one has a reasonable option to say "I ain't doing the latest ios update".

The U01 addresses the potential of the engine shutting off on the freeway or pulling out of a turn bay into the path of an 18 wheeler.

This is not something to wait on.

As an FYI, if you had the T23 done last year, it covers the same U01 update and the U01 is considered "complete" and not necessary.

I had the T23 done and just got a scary email from FCA today saying I need the U01 performed. Called the dealer and they ran my Vin and U01 is NOT needed and still listed as complete. I thought there might have been some new information but it's all old.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
I'll add that the software update seems to be working as the stalling reports has come to a complete dead (catastrophic?) stop. And as the U01 was implemented late last year, it looks like Chrysler was on top of the situation even without the hysteria that certain posters created. I believe that the U01 was started even before the recall? Could be that Chrysler was going to release it but had to go back and call it a recall because of all the hoopla certain poster caused.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
477 Posts
I'll add that the software update seems to be working as the stalling reports has come to a complete dead (catastrophic?) stop. And as the U01 was implemented late last year, it looks like Chrysler was on top of the situation even without the hysteria that certain posters created. I believe that the U01 was started even before the recall? Could be that Chrysler was going to release it but had to go back and call it a recall because of all the hoopla certain poster caused.
Small point of order here. T23 was last year, U01 is this year. Just clearing up the typo for future readers.

There was more than one person who had stall issues and a few have reported here stalls AFTER the T23 update. This group on the forum is a small number, most of the hundreds of thousands of Pacifica owners don't report here so there are bound to be others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
But isn't the whole controversy that the U01 was retro installed last year, because it was rolled in with the T23? And people complained that they never took their cars in this year but the Chrysler website stated that the U01 was already done?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,283 Posts
Small point of order here. T23 was last year, U01 is this year. Just clearing up the typo for future readers.

There was more than one person who had stall issues and a few have reported here stalls AFTER the T23 update. This group on the forum is a small number, most of the hundreds of thousands of Pacifica owners don't report here so there are bound to be others.
But you gotta admit, there isn't the number of reports here like there was before, right? I mean that stalling thread had thousands of views and hundreds of posts. Now hardly any.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,144 Posts
But isn't the whole controversy that the U01 was retro installed last year, because it was rolled in with the T23? And people complained that they never took their cars in this year but the Chrysler website stated that the U01 was already done?
Yes, there was controversy because many of us just can't help believing in conspiracies. T23 fixed the problem coding that caused the stalling problem, but not by design. Rather, when FCA finally figured out the stalling problem they realized that it had already been fixed with T23. Oddly, it may be that T23 slowed down FCA's diagnosis of the stalling problem, because the engineers might have been working on a code base that included T23.

But you gotta admit, there isn't the number of reports here like there was before, right? I mean that stalling thread had thousands of views and hundreds of posts. Now hardly any.
It does seem like FCA nailed the problem addressed by U01 because, exactly as you say, complaints have plummeted. It also seems as if the code is still not quite perfect because there are still some stalls reported, but the code is apparently far closer to where it should be...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
917 Posts
Yes, there was controversy because many of us just can't help believing in conspiracies. T23 fixed the problem coding that caused the stalling problem, but not by design. Rather, when FCA finally figured out the stalling problem they realized that it had already been fixed with T23. Oddly, it may be that T23 slowed down FCA's diagnosis of the stalling problem, because the engineers might have been working on a code base that included T23.



It does seem like FCA nailed the problem addressed by U01 because, exactly as you say, complaints have plummeted. It also seems as if the code is still not quite perfect because there are still some stalls reported, but the code is apparently far closer to where it should be...
"...because there are still some stalls reported,..." What stalls reported where?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,144 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
917 Posts
I believe Tusk White made that claim in this thread
Yep. I don't think we have heard anything about his situation for a few days (3-29-2018 was his last post). His problem seems like something other than a need for a flash update. Short in the wiring harness, bad ground...???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
770 Posts
To help clarify - this is how I envision the scenario (with the benefit of hindsight): The EGR/PCM updates (including T23) involved replacing/updating code. The crew working on U01 were working on unmodified code, and developed a patch. When they went to develop the update, (after announcing the finding and "assigning" U01 to the fix,) they discovered that EGR/PCM updates had done the work for them. Chrysler then did a really poor job of explaining what they were doing, and marked "U01" as complete which set off a whole new wave of suspicion about what was going on. But they have been steadfast saying that the previous updates remove the need for U01.

Yes -- Tusk White was very vocal about his last stall. I think he went to arbitration last week, but has not posted the outcome.

I think there was a least one other, but no idea where they posted.

But overall, the reporting frequency is way down. Granted this forum is only home to a small fraction of owners, but people with problems search the internet and find their way here to make us aware of their issues. There are always going to be stalls for various causes, so those will never totally disappear, but U01 and its companions seem to have done the trick for most of us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
459 Posts
has anyone had this repair done yet? if so, have any new problems surfaced?

...
I had my Dealer do the Recall Update UO1 as my 10K miles Service was performed a little over a week ago. After the Update I have taken a number of 200 plus mile highway trips with one major change noted. On three separate occasions with the ACC engaged, once in the left-most highway lane and twice in the right-most highway lane a vehicle quite some distance in front of me had turned off the road to the left in the first case and to the right in the other two cases. These vehicles were considerably off the road and no driver would have hit the brakes in any of these situations. The Pacifica however in each case slowed down substantially and immediately without any Brake, Brake, Brake display or audible alarm. The road in each case was straight. Prior to the Update in my first 10K miles I had never had this type of behavior of the vehicle. The other behavior that I believe to be new, but am not certain is... If I engage the ACC in Local driving (ie., Not Interstate) the vehicle will track the vehicle in front of me and speed up or slow down accordingly, but if we get to a stop light, the Pacifica will not start moving again like it does in highway traffic. I don't know if this is due to some internal timer, or what. In my 10K miles prior to the Recall Update, I thought the Pacifica always slowed, stopped, started up again with the flow of the traffic in front of me whenever the ACC was engaged.

I did however experience the Brake, Brake, Brake with alarm a couple of times over the first 10K miles, but without the ACC engaged. I have read many threads on this forum about others experiencing this type of issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
477 Posts
But you gotta admit, there isn't the number of reports here like there was before, right? I mean that stalling thread had thousands of views and hundreds of posts. Now hardly any.
Indeed, the reports are nonexistent now however even at the peak, I think there were less than 50 reports. 1 stall in front of an 18 wheeler is one too many so I don't want to minimize the risk in any way.

Yes, there was controversy because many of us just can't help believing in conspiracies. T23 fixed the problem coding that caused the stalling problem, but not by design. Rather, when FCA finally figured out the stalling problem they realized that it had already been fixed with T23. Oddly, it may be that T23 slowed down FCA's diagnosis of the stalling problem, because the engineers might have been working on a code base that included T23.



It does seem like FCA nailed the problem addressed by U01 because, exactly as you say, complaints have plummeted. It also seems as if the code is still not quite perfect because there are still some stalls reported, but the code is apparently far closer to where it should be...
Chrysler did not help the situation by issuing recall info indicting a fix would be in the works by April and mysteriously listing the U01 recall as "completed" on 2/20/18 when no one had gone in to have the work performed. Only AFTER inquiring did we learn that "if you had the T23 done earlier, it updated the PCM software so the U01 is not required if T23 was already done".

I just got an email yesterday from FCA with an "urgent" notice in "red" that included my VIN stating I need to have a safety recall done. That is the U01 and one would think that if they have my VIN, they should know that I don't need the U01 if indeed the T23 covered it and they know I had T23 done. Thinking there is something new to do, I called the dealer yesterday and ran my VIN. It is still listed as completed with no outstanding recalls. Not exactly a conspiracy theory and healthy skepticism is fueled by these missteps and confusing information.

"...because there are still some stalls reported,..." What stalls reported where?
Not all stalls are T23/U01 related. One cat, it might have been T W below, who had bad coils and other issues.

I believe Tusk White made that claim in this thread
He needs to lemon that thing. Does not seem to be T23/U01 related.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
459 Posts
wisejd;453770 I thought the Pacifica always slowed said:
This is not an issue... In another thread it was pointed out that there indeed is a "timer" set at 2 seconds. If the vehicle comes to a complete stop with the ACC engaged and remains stopped for over 2 seconds the driver will need to depress the Resume Button or the Gas Pedal to resume forward motion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
770 Posts
Interesting question that was never explicitly answered. Is U01 a complete subset of T23 or does it do other things that T23 does not?

I suspect it is only a T23 subset, otherwise we would have needed U01 anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
477 Posts
Interesting question that was never explicitly answered. Is U01 a complete subset of T23 or does it do other things that T23 does not?

I suspect it is only a T23 subset, otherwise we would have needed U01 anyway.
Seems plausible. That is what FCA has suggested based on the fact that if you had T23 done, U01 is not needed.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
About this Discussion
18 Replies
9 Participants
II Kings 9:20
2017+ Chrysler Pacifica Minivan Forums
PacificaForums.com - A forum community dedicated to Chrysler Pacifica owners & enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about upgrades, towing capacity, reliability, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top